Re: p2: deprecating 205 Reset Content?

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 30 April 2013 02:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EEE021F9BED for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:11:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.737
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.737 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.862, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2OTdMNaziEkG for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D977021F9BE3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UX01W-00064R-K1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:10:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:10:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UX01W-00064R-K1@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UX01N-00062p-Qz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:10:21 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UX01N-0006gf-1u for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Apr 2013 02:10:21 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E65D550A88; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CB428B8E-5654-46C3-83EA-0B9196B3C362@gbiv.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 12:09:55 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <25369035-A891-45E2-8873-966F80BBD06E@mnot.net>
References: <D27B99AF-5FC0-4ABA-8E4D-9F3E241C4046@mnot.net> <CB428B8E-5654-46C3-83EA-0B9196B3C362@gbiv.com>
To: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.370, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UX01N-0006gf-1u 19a70fb5091de29ad139374ce4583c91
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: p2: deprecating 205 Reset Content?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/25369035-A891-45E2-8873-966F80BBD06E@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17698
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Ok. What about noting its implementation status? We've done that in a few other places, where people might be surprised by lack of support for a feature.


On 30/04/2013, at 3:14 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> The most common use of 205 is within custom HTTP systems, not browsers.
> We could only do harm by deprecating it.
> 
> ....Roy
> 
> On Apr 28, 2013, at 10:34 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>> p2 defines this status code:
>> 
>>> The 205 (Reset Content) status code indicates that the server has fulfilled the request and desires that the user agent reset the "document view", which caused the request to be sent, to its original state as received from the origin server.
>> 
>> but AIUI it isn't implemented in any browser. See:
>> http://benramsey.com/blog/2008/05/http-status-204-no-content-and-205-reset-content/
>> 
>> While it might have uses outside of browsers, the identified use case *is* data entry, which screams "browser" (at least to me). 
>> 
>> AFAICT it was first proposed here:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg-old/1995MayAug/0575.html
>> and resolutely failed to catch on.
>> 
>> This being the case, should we consider noting its lack of implementation support, or even deprecating it (as we did for 305, which showed a similar lack of interest/deployment)?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> P.S. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this; if people have strong feelings against both noting lack of support and deprecating it, just say so and I'm happy to drop it. OTOH if you think it's a good idea, say so and it'll help us make a decision more quickly.
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/